TO A. G. SHLYAPNIKOV

Published:First published in 1924 inLenin Miscellany II.

      Sent from Berne to Stockholm.

      Printed from the original.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1971,

      Moscow,Volume 36,

      pages307-309.Translated:Andrew RothsteinTranscription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive.You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work, as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

November 14, 1914

DearFriend,

Iam very glad to hear from you that the C.O. has been
received, and is to go where it should.

Asregards your speech at the congress of the Swedish
Social-Democrats, I can advise only this: either no speech
at all, or a statement that you greet the fraternal party
of the Swedish workers and wish it every successin the
spirit of revolutionary international
Social-Democracy.[1]If you cannot saythis, then it is not worth while speaking
at all. But if possible, of course, it would be best to add
(1) that the Russian workers have expressed their view
through the Social-Democratic Duma group, which didnotvote for the budget,
(2) that they are issuingillegalleaflets in St. Petersburg, Riga, Moscow and the Caucasus,
(3) that the organs of their Party, the C.C. and the C.O.,
have declared against international opportunism.

Isthis “done”?—H’m.... Of course, Branting won’t like
it, but it’s not our business to “please” the opportunists.
If you are given 10–12 minutes andfreedomof speech, then
you should speakagainst German(and other) opportunism,
without, of course, in any way touching either the
Swedish Social-Democrats or their “Young”, and so forth. As
regards restoring the International, I would advise younotto say anything, either directly or indirectly. I am
sending you an article (a very good one!) on this theme
(translate it and send it to
Russia).[2]We shall keep silent
on the question of restoring the International, and stay
on the side lines. We must bide our time. TheLeftists[3]are beginning to stir among the Germans:ifthey have a
split,then, maybe, the International will be saved from
rotting.

Asregards the watchword of “peace”, you are mistaken
if you think the bourgeoisie doesn’t even want to hear
of it. Today I have been reading the EnglishEconomist.
Thewisebourgeois of an advanced country areforpeace
(of course, in order tostrengthencapitalism).[4]But we
must not let ourselves be confused with the petty-bourgeois,
sentimental liberals, etc. The epoch of thebayonethas
begun. This is a fact; consequently, we have to fightwith
such a weapon too.

Oneof these days, the slogan of peace will be taken up
by theGermanbourgeoisie, and particularly by theopportunists. We must stand for the watchword ofthe
revolutionary proletariat, capable offightingforits ownaims—
and that is civil war. This too is averyconcrete watchword,
andit aloneunerringly reveals the main trends: either
for the proletarian, or for the bourgeois cause.

Asregards the debt to the
Swedes,[5]neither I nor
Nadezhda Konstantinovna can remember anything at all. But
it isquitepossible that either I did not know, or have
forgotten. It would be a very good thing, therefore, to send
them a friendly letter of thanks, suggesting that the debt
should be “donated”. I think you yourself could do this,
on behalf of the Petrograd Committee, for example, plussomeSocial-Democratic deputies, authorising you in
Petrograd. I believe this would be the best form. I think
you should act in the same way on the loan. I would not
advise pushing a letter from me (it could start “factional”
squabbles!). I will send a letter if you insist, but my
advice is: don’t.Withoutme they will bebetterinclined to
give, really! Refer to Petrovsky, get a letter from him
(if need be), this is better, really!

Allthe very best,Yours,N. Lenin

P.S.If Kollontai translates the Central Committee
manifesto (from No. 33 of the C.O.) into German, perhaps
you will send us a copy?

P.S.About the “peace” watchword. An interesting
article by Bernstein in the last issue ofNeue Zeitshows that
in Britain, where the bourgeoisie is cleverest and freest
of all, etc., there is a trendfor peacefrom the standpoint of
ultra-opportunism. That is, peace is the best guarantee
of “social peace”, i.e., thesubmissionof the proletariat
to the bourgeoisie, the pacification of the proletariat,
thecontinuationof the existence of capitalism.
Bernstein’s article does not elaborate this. But it is
obvious that there are manysuchpeacemakers among the
liberal and radicalbourgeoisof all countries. Add to this
(1) thatallchauvinists are also for peace (only onwhatterms)—and in the legal press, we shallnot be allowedto speak of our terms!
(2) that the German and RussianCourtsare also for a particular kind of peace with each other
(in secret today, half-open tomorrow),
(3) that all the
sentimental bourgeois and philistines are “for peace” from
the “anti-revolutionary”, philistine, slavish, etc.,
standpoint.

Thequestion is, whoobjectivelynow benefits from the
watchword of peace? In any case, not the propaganda of
the ideas of therevolutionaryproletariat! Not the idea
ofutilisingthe war tohastenthe collapse of capitalism!

Addto this the victory of the opportunist chauvinists
in nearly all countries: the slogan of peace will onlyhelpthem toextricate themselves.

[1]TheCongress of the Swedish Social-Democratic Party took place
in Stockholm on November 23, 1914. On the opening day, A. 
Shlyapnikov, under the pseudonym of Belenin, made a declaration
on behalf of the C.C. of the R.S.D.L.P. in accordance with the
instructions given in the present letter (see also present edition,
Vol. 21, p. 108).

[2]A.Pannekoek’sarticle, “Der Zusammenbruch der
Internationale” (The Collapse of the International), was published in the
Swiss Left-wing Social-Democratic newspaper,Berner TagwachtNos. 245, 246 and 247 of October 20, 21 and 22, 1914.

[3]Theformation within the German Social-Democratic Party of
an internationalist Left-wing group headed by Karl Liebknecht
and Rosa Luxemburg, which formed the nucleus of the Spartacus
League.

[4]Anapparent reference to the article “The Opening of
Parliament”, published in the British bourgeois journalThe EconomistNo. 3, 716, November 14, 1914.

Lenin’sarticle “Bourgeois Philanthropists and
Revolutionary Social-Democracy” (see present edition, Vol. 21, pp. 192–93)
gives a review ofThe Economist’s stand on peace.

[5]Theloan of 3,000 kronen was obtained by the R.S.D.L.P. from
the Swedish Social-Democratic Party in 1907 during its Fifth
Congress (London).